word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

“Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven,” -- Arthur Laffer 01/03/2014

asa watcher wrote:And your contention that “Single-payer would be even more liberal/extreme than what we ended up with, and gone even further in the WRONG direction” is an opinion that boasts nothing in the way of evidence. In fact, more evidence exists in the rest of the world for just the opposite conclusion.

When Kate Middleton and Prince William had their baby a few months ago, they did not use Britain's NHS, its version of single-payer. When the Premier of Canada needed heart surgery, he didn't use Canada's single-payer. He came to the U.S. for that treatment. Under single-payer, the best of private health care would be available to the most wealthy and powerful, while the rest of us would have to settle for the dregs. And we'd have to wait longer for those.

Face it, Capitalism has failed to provide Americans with reasonable, affordable access to health care, and Capitalist lackeys are fighting tooth and nail to prevent We the People from doing it for ourselves.

Capitalism successfully provides the majority of Americans with everything else they need -- food, housing, energy, ... And where it's allowed to operate in the health care system, i.e. LASIK eye surgery and plastic surgery, the quality has improved, while the price has fallen. There's no rational reason it can't work for the rest of health care either.

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

NO. And please stop with the over-the-top, wild-eyed, delusional accusations parroted from the liberal left about what conservatives and Republicans would like to suggest, and have suggested, as REFORMS to Social Security. First of all, the left has to admit that REFORMS are necessary in all of our social welfare programs - SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Once that is done, then the real work of actual reform can begin. Up to now they are in almost TOTAL denial, and that ain't just a river in Egypt.

First, SS as it is now remains untouched for anyone 55 or older. This number can be adjusted in negotiations but it cannot go higher. Anyone 55 or older has planned on it and should not be forced to readjust now. They simply do not have enough time.

Second, for young workers (18 - 30) entering the workforce the most options will be allowed, but limited and regulated. They should be allowed to invest or save a percentage of what would be taken out/paid by employer for SS in financial instruments of their choice in an account they control and can leave to anyone they want if they die before they can access the money. These choices will be restricted and a large part of this should be in conservative, secure, and guaranteed investments, like FDIC accounts and US Treasuries. Low risk stuff. The returns on this should far surpass anything that SS as it is now would ever pay. A small portion could be invested in equities, bonds, and commodities.

For workers in the middle of their careers (30 - 54) something not as permissive as the young workers, but more choices than the older workers have. Perhaps low risk/no risk investments only and as you approach 55 - 60 those choices are limited to the most conservative choices where risk is low.

Some part of this will still have to go into the SS Ponzi Scheme to support current retirees and those approaching retirement age. This can be worked out, as it has to be because as it stands now, we are headed for a train wreck if we do nothing.

P.S There is NO Social Security Trust Fund or lock box or whatever you want to call it. What sits in that "Trust Fund" is about $2800 BILLION ($2.8 TRILLION) of government IOUs. They are called Special Issue Bonds. Intra-government IOUs. In order to pay out to SS recipients these bonds must be redeemed into CASH. That cash comes from only 3 places - we collect it in new tax revenue, we print it, or we borrow it. This is the big bomb waiting to off and it will happen a lot sooner than 50 years.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." ~ President Ronald Reagan

asa watcher wrote:When the Democrats had that “absolute control” of the government that I’m told by the right wing that they had, they should never have compromised with the representatives of the corporate insurance companies.Single payer should have stayed on the table, but nooo, single payer, government option, Medicare for all, were swept off, disregarded, gone from congressional consideration before hearings even began.Instead, we see the mess of complications created by coddling the “private sector”, the acquiescence to corporate involvement, and the inherent madness of injecting Capitalism into trying to institutionalize the best interests of We the People.

The first paragraph is right. Dems did have complete (supermajority) control, as witnessed by Obamacare passing without a single Republican vote. First time in US history that such a major federal program has been passed in 100% partisan fashion (and then they wonder why so many people hate it so much).

BTW, all the compromise that took place with Obamacare was not to get Republicans to vote for it (none did), it was to get moderate DEMOCRATS to vote for it. That right there should have told everyone how bad it was.

Single-payer would be even more liberal/extreme than what we ended up with, and gone even further in the WRONG direction. It's the ever-growing govt manipulation of health care in this country that has screwed up the normal free market checks and balances in it. 50 years ago (when the federal govt stayed almost completely out of health care), we didn't have these problems, and costs/prices stayed in check. But with each passing decade, the federal govt got deeper and deeper into our health care. The resulting mess was predictable.

Liberals keep pushing in the exact opposite direction of where it needs to go. We do have problems with the current system, and they need to be fixed by getting the federal govt OUT of health care, since more than anyone they're the ones that have been mucking it all up.

The ACA was passed first by the Senate on Dec. 24, 2009 when the Dems did not have a super majority and they compromised to avoid a filibuster.

False. It did pass the Senate on 12/24/09, but Dems absolutely DID have a supermajority (60 in their caucus)...

You're forgetting that Paul Kirk had been appointed to replace Ted Kennedy on 9/25/09. And that Arlen Specter switched parties (R to D) on 4/30/09.

And yes, they needed 60 to avoid a filibuster. And to get those 60 Dems (technically 58 Dems and the 3 independents that caucus with them, but same difference), they did have to compromise... WITH THE MODERATE DEMOCRATS. Remember the Cornhusker Kickback, and all the other shady deals they had to make to get Den Nelson and Bill Nelson and Mary Landrieu and other Dems on board?

Last edited by dbsb3233 on November 4th, 2013, 1:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

The trust fund is exhausted, period! In fact the "trust fund" is in the red by about 3 trillion dollars. The IOU's held in the "trust fund" is nothing more that another debt owed to ourselves and the interest on the debt is paid for out of the general fund (taxpayer money) and the principal the 3 trillion dollars must also be paid back by the taxpaying public.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

The latest projection is for expenses to overtake revenues in 2020. Actually they already did for 2 years during Obama's SS tax holiday, but now that that's over we're back in the black. But the tipping point is now much sooner as a result (just 7 years away).

SS is sustainable, but ONLY if we adjust benefit ages upward to keep up with lifespans. The failure to do so has been a HUGE stewardship failure, and is the primary reason there is a tipping point coming that will throw the program into the red if not remedied soon.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

The trust fund is exhausted, period! In fact the "trust fund" is in the red by about 3 trillion dollars. The IOU's held in the "trust fund" is nothing more that another debt owed to ourselves and the interest on the debt is paid for out of the general fund (taxpayer money) and the principal the 3 trillion dollars must also be paid back by the taxpaying public.

It's not exhausted at the moment but it's certainly heading there soon. The $3 trillion is suppose to be the surplus that's to be IOU'd back into the fund after Administrations started siphoning that surplus off and over to the general fund. It has as much hope of getting paid back as we do of paying off the (currently $17T and soaring) national debt. That's because it's one in the same now. When LBJ removed that barrier between the SS fund and the general fund, he make those funds fungible. As long as the general fund remains perpetually upside down, there's no realistic chance of the general fund paying back those IOU's it stole from SS.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

dbsb3233 wrote:SS is sustainable, but ONLY if we adjust benefit ages upward to keep up with lifespans. The failure to do so has been a HUGE stewardship failure, and is the primary reason there is a tipping point coming that will throw the program into the red if not remedied soon.

Not really. We could also raise the income cap on payroll taxes. Or means-test benefits. There are multiple straightforward ways to keep the fund solvent without reducing benefits for old folks who need it.

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

50 years? Wow, I have heard some outrageous predictions on this, but this one is an instant classic. Who told you that? Obama?

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

The trust fund is exhausted, period! In fact the "trust fund" is in the red by about 3 trillion dollars. The IOU's held in the "trust fund" is nothing more that another debt owed to ourselves and the interest on the debt is paid for out of the general fund (taxpayer money) and the principal the 3 trillion dollars must also be paid back by the taxpaying public.

It's not exhausted at the moment but it's certainly heading there soon. The $3 trillion is suppose to be the surplus that's to be IOU'd back into the fund after Administrations started siphoning that surplus off and over to the general fund. It has as much hope of getting paid back as we do of paying off the (currently $17T and soaring) national debt. That's because it's one in the same now. When LBJ removed that barrier between the SS fund and the general fund, he make those funds fungible. As long as the general fund remains perpetually upside down, there's no realistic chance of the general fund paying back those IOU's it stole from SS.

The SS trust fund is invested in US Treasury securities, among the safest investments on the planet. And probably the only place you can invest $3T without causing major market disruptions. I know you guys like to call it "IOUs" instead to make it sound frivolous and unsafe, but that's more than a bit disingenuous.

seloverb wrote:But......the government can't lie as well as the private sector! Just who is being dishonest, and who are the suckers who believe them? Think this through folks. If you believe the negative propaganda about ObamaCare, and trust the insurance companies, it will cost you dearly!

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

The trust fund is exhausted, period! In fact the "trust fund" is in the red by about 3 trillion dollars. The IOU's held in the "trust fund" is nothing more that another debt owed to ourselves and the interest on the debt is paid for out of the general fund (taxpayer money) and the principal the 3 trillion dollars must also be paid back by the taxpaying public.

It's not exhausted at the moment but it's certainly heading there soon. The $3 trillion is suppose to be the surplus that's to be IOU'd back into the fund after Administrations started siphoning that surplus off and over to the general fund. It has as much hope of getting paid back as we do of paying off the (currently $17T and soaring) national debt. That's because it's one in the same now. When LBJ removed that barrier between the SS fund and the general fund, he make those funds fungible. As long as the general fund remains perpetually upside down, there's no realistic chance of the general fund paying back those IOU's it stole from SS.

The SS trust fund is invested in US Treasury securities, among the safest investments on the planet. And probably the only place you can invest $3T without causing major market disruptions. I know you guys like to call it "IOUs" instead to make it sound frivolous and unsafe, but that's more than a bit disingenuous.

Wrong. They are IOUs. They are not at all standard US Treasury Bills, Notes, or Bonds. They are not for public issue as they are restricted to being intra-governmental debt instruments. The US Treasury (with the permission of both political parties over the years) had raided this money to buy everything government buys and left behind these Special Issue Bonds. That is why they have a special name. THEY ARE NOT standard issue Treasury debt instruments. This is the big lie that liberals have sold and bought into when they say that the SS Trust Fund is solvent for however many years they claim.

They are IOUs. Fancy ones. But NOT negotiable ones or publicly traded ones. They are not backed by gold or silver. They have worth as long as the US Dollar has worth and the US Government can pay it's bills, which lately and with a $17 TRILLION national debt that keeps growing, is getting more questionable every year.

MichaelJohn wrote:P.S There is NO Social Security Trust Fund or lock box or whatever you want to call it. What sits in that "Trust Fund" is about $2800 BILLION ($2.8 TRILLION) of government IOUs. They are called Special Issue Bonds. Intra-government IOUs. In order to pay out to SS recipients these bonds must be redeemed into CASH. That cash comes from only 3 places - we collect it in new tax revenue, we print it, or we borrow it. This is the big bomb waiting to off and it will happen a lot sooner than 50 years.

It's an interesting sleight of hand you use where SS's surpluses don't count, but its deficits do/will.

If SS's surpluses don't count, why do you quote our national debt at $17-trillion?

“Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven,” -- Arthur Laffer 01/03/2014

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

50 years? Wow, I have heard some outrageous predictions on this, but this one is an instant classic. Who told you that? Obama?

Gee people, wake up.

You're right, I should have looked it up. The most recent estimate I see from the trustees is 2033. Can't find a reliable source for the 2020 quoted elsewhere in this thread.

“Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven,” -- Arthur Laffer 01/03/2014

MichaelJohn wrote:P.S There is NO Social Security Trust Fund or lock box or whatever you want to call it. What sits in that "Trust Fund" is about $2800 BILLION ($2.8 TRILLION) of government IOUs. They are called Special Issue Bonds. Intra-government IOUs. In order to pay out to SS recipients these bonds must be redeemed into CASH. That cash comes from only 3 places - we collect it in new tax revenue, we print it, or we borrow it. This is the big bomb waiting to off and it will happen a lot sooner than 50 years.

It's an interesting sleight of hand you use where SS's surpluses don't count, but its deficits do/will.

If SS's surpluses don't count, why do you quote our national debt at $17-trillion?

The surpluses have all been spent and replaced with the $2800 BILLION in Special Issue Bonds.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." ~ President Ronald Reagan

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

NO. And please stop with the over-the-top, wild-eyed, delusional accusations parroted from the liberal left about what conservatives and Republicans would like to suggest, and have suggested, as REFORMS to Social Security. First of all, the left has to admit that REFORMS are necessary in all of our social welfare programs - SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Once that is done, then the real work of actual reform can begin. Up to now they are in almost TOTAL denial, and that ain't just a river in Egypt.

You may have provided us with *your* plan, but the only time in my memory that the GOP proffered any kind of SS reform was right after Bush started his second term. If you remember, he wanted us to invest SS in the stock market. Given what happened just a few years later, thank God we didn't go along with his plan.

“Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven,” -- Arthur Laffer 01/03/2014

word-virus wrote:Social security had some of the same problems when it was rolled out like for example it was underfunded so it wold not work properly by none other than the republicans. So yes the roll out was a wreck but it will work its kinks out. Obama has done the right thing its the private sector that failed him. He was duped into thinking that the private sector could do anything honestly.

Are you attempting to point to Social Security as an example of a success? Seriously? Typical liberal hack, fails to understand the true financial health of the program. Before you attempt to site this program as an example of a successful Government program, perhaps you should delve into the future cash flow model of the program. Careful, it might shock your rose colored glasses.

The trust fund is exhausted in 50 years or so. We have time to figure it out. In the meantime, we've had real benefits, bringing dignity to the lives of the elderly for decades. For the median senior American, 66% of their income is from SS. But your alternative is what... repeal Medicare & SS and let them die on the streets?

The "trust fund" has no actual money in it and requires revenue to be taken from the general fund (current tax revenues) to make good on it.

BTW, your 50 year figure is erroneous, no one is realistically projecting more than about 20 years and that number is being reduced as the economy and wages deteriorate instead of making increases that the 20 year figure requires to be valid.

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." (Barack Obama August 21, 2010)